OT: 6 megapixels best format for your woodworking pictures?

[Swingman]

"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote

:) Yep ... that was a studio "joke" also.

The producer sits down and sez: "OK, when we get everything louder than everything else, we can go home!"

[Swingman]

"Robatoy" wrote

Hehe ... Hell, just wait until the singer/songwriter's boyfriend shows up ... he'll feel compelled to add his 2000 cents, even though he's never been in a studio before, and can't even spell "mix".

[David's Newsgroups]

You sure have to pay for those "fast" lenses. I've been shopping for a

2.8 telephoto in the 100-300mm zoom range: OUCH! SONY wants $2300 for a 70-210 f2.8! I ended up with Tamron's 18-250 f3.5-6.3 as compromise and have been happy to date. And the image stabilization does give me another couple of f-stops. It was also less than a fourth of the price of that SONY. If only this Alpha would take the old Minolta Rokkor lenses I have. To the quality issue SONY's 18-70 kit lens for their Alpha line compare favorably [in image quality] to their new Zeiss 16-80 selling for several times more if you believe the written reviews.

[David's Newsgroups]

Half the fun for me is tweaking my images with Paint Shop Pro Photo (X2). I used to have a pirated copy of PS 6 or 7 that my kid came up with; too much learning curve for my surgically-altered brain and I still don't use a fraction of the features in PSP (just like my brain!). Still, it makes for a noticeable improvement in the vast majority of my shots.

[Upscale]

As do I, but I like Fireworks instead. About four months ago, I bought myself a Nikon D40X camera with a 70-300 mm lens. I take all pictures at the highest resolution and then crop them or resize them to what I want. With a fast 2 gig class 6 secure digital card, I can take as many pictures as I want, keep what I want and discard the rest. I think this is the best part of digital cameras, the fact that it doesn't cost a cent after the initial camera purchase to take as many images as I desire.

Unlike many printers where the companies make their profits on the consumables, digital cameras don't really have any consumables to speak of.

[Upscale]

Not with the Nikon. It's got a Lithium Ion battery good for upwards of 250 pictures before a recharge is needed. And if I know I'm going to be somewhere that I'll be taking many pictures, it's a simple matter to use the power adapter, assuming a wall outlet is available, while the battery recharges.

[Robatoy]

LOL...I have seen that before. You can always tell a pro by how much he/she recognizes other pros and leaves them to do their jobs.

[kees]

[Robatoy]

I know of what you speak. An earbud trying to come up with the same amount of air-movement of a bass drum-skin getting the shit kicked out of it...suuuuure.

At Eastern Sound in Toronto, they still have a single 6 x 9 paper cone with a whizzer, in mono, sitting on top of their million dollar board.

They're messing with that a lot too though...I'm sure you noticed that commercials 'appear' to be louder than the programming in between?

I listened to The Arctic Monkeys (The article mentions the same thing, IIRC) a while back and noticed they never took a breath, just one long flow of singing. (yup, I used the word, sorry) Then on another CD (The Muse) every time the singer (yup, used the word again) breathed in, they had enhanced the gulp of air every- fricking-time. Boy did THAT get tiresome quickly.... but on my kid's ear-buds, that gulp isn't so repulsive, simply because it can't deliver it with the same grossness.

So true... shit is shit. "Shoot!" is shit with two o's (Carlin)

I can't stand them. I have some pretty decent Sennheiser 'over-the ear' type of headphones, I just don't like they way they throw the image inside my head.

>

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

A friend of mine suggests that he go out into the big room, and listen loudly on the big playback monitors. It usually works well.

[Artemus]

True, but a polarizer does increase the contrast of the open sky vs the summer cumulous clouds very nicely. Art

[Artemus]

[snip]

Ah yes. Good old Yuktachrome. Higher speed and much grainier than Kodachrome but still better than Fuji. I only used it in low light, no flash situations. IIRC you could process this yourself, unlike Kodachrome, but we never bothered.

Somewhere around here I still have some of the old processing mailers for Kodachrome. I wonder if they are still accepted by Kodak? Art

[Dead-Eye-Dave in Houston]

Somewhere around here I've got a couple of rolls of exposed film I've never had processed and have long, long ago forgotten what's on them.

[Robatoy]

That kinda shit can get you arrested...LOL

[Dead-Eye-Dave in Houston]

That kinda shit can get you arrested...LOL

THOSE are in the gun safe.

[John Grossbohlin]

I hear you on Photoshop... I started out with Photoshop Elements but was quickly frustrated by the limitations. I keep trying new things with Photoshop CS and am usually pleased with the results. For example, I took photos of reenactors portraying the British burning my home town. With PS I removed 21st century people, cars, telephone poles, aluminum windows in an old commercial building, street signs, fire hydrants, pavement markings, etc., to give it more of an 18th century look and feel. My days working at Colonial Williamsburg have influenced my tastes and PS lets me make things fit my tastes. ;~) PS also lets me fix a lot of problems... exposure, framing, out of focus due to wobble, etc.

Every photo I have had printed in the past couple years has been touched by PS... even if it's only cropping before going to the print lab on CD. I simply cannot justify printing them at home as the consumables cost more than the commercial lab charges (currently $.15 per 4"x6" print for quantities over 100) and the lab is using the latest Fuji mini-lab equipment. Speed is also an issue... for me to print at home the 194 photos I had printed Friday would have been a tremendously laborious experience. Add in the fact that there is a lab 1 mile from my house and that I can typically have the lab printed photos back in a hour or two and it's a no-brainer. How many could I print, glued to the computer, in an hour or two? Surely not 194! There is a professional lab practically across the street from the consumer lab but since I PS the photos myself I haven't found any advantage to using them--at a significantly greater cost--over the consumer lab.

A constant challenge is photographing the wooden items that I make. I know it's a lighting problem... how to show off the details and wood characteristics consistently has escaped my command thus far! The right way to do it would be to have a photography "studio" set up where I can place the objects for photographing... that isn't going to happen due to space issues. I need some kind of portable, easily stored "studio." That is one of my "when I have time" projects... with a long list of "I really need to get it done" projects. ;~)

John

[Twayne]

pushed by the phony hype of marketeers, what you want to do with the pictures. Need to get an accurate image of a fly's ass on top of a telephone pole? Get high pixels. Gonna print the pics for albums & occasional 8 x 10 enlargements? Mid-pixel range. Just one to one 35 mm pics and only shown on a PC screen? Get low pixels.

Nothing's ever as simple as it seems these days, but ignorance and making statements like the above are simply sour grapes and/or ignorance or both. Do some research.

Pop`

[Robatoy]

Get a zoom lens or climb the pole. Personally, I would be more interested in other subjects.

What's with the 'sour grapes' bullshit, Pops?

Did you miss these links, Pops?

back to me when you've done your homework.

[Twayne]

In other words, higher pixel rates not needed, even if they were available at the time of design of the rovers, dummy.

A strong aversion to mis-information.

Nope; but you missed my comment on them.

What was that about sour grapes?

[J. Clarke]

When you get right down to it Mars Rovers aren't _needed_. Nobody's going to die if we don't have them. Space hardware is always a compromise--they might have wanted more resolution but not been able to support it due to power consumption or data transmission rates or durability or any number of other reasons. The fact that a particular resolution was used in a particular application does not mean that it is any kind of universal ideal. Dummy.

Then you should stop spreading it.